Momentum is m*v, kinetic energy is 1/2*m*v^2. Also, you're saying that some kind of energy (not sure where it's coming from) is stored as momentum, but that the craft doesn't accelerate. So, what, it's getting heavier?

No, it maintains it's Mass, unless it's burning propellent, but the OTHER factor, Velocity goes down. The other constant in the larger equation is Gravity, which you're fighting the whole way up, which is why you have to keep adding energy to maintain the same altitude, much less go higher, and accelerate to orbit.

Honestly, if I have to explain basic math, and physics (Like if you have something in the air, you have gravity pulling on it constantly) then why are you proposing how to do what the actual rocket scientists have failed to? You really think that by reversing the vectors, and putting the variables in the equations wherever you want is going to magically pull off a zero propellent launch to orbit? Stick to science fiction.

_________________"You can't have everything, where would you put it?" -Steven Wright.

I heard you thie first time, what have you done to address the whole slamming into the atmosphere at hypersonic velocities? Minimum Orbital velocity is about 5 miles a second, and hitting the thin top of the atmosphere at those speeds heats the craft to temperatures our best materials can bairly withstand. Now, you can't just launch something from the ground at Mach 25, because by the time it reaches orbital altitude, it's lost so much energy to Gravity and Drag that it will just come back down at a ballistic trajectory. I can't tell how much until I have all the variables, such as Drag Coefficient to tell you how many times 25 times the speed of sound we're talking about. I see the unexplained technobable catch phrase for today is Plasma Supercavity. Let me know when you, or anyone else makes one you can show me numbers from.

"It's a dart," that's all you got at this point.

_________________"You can't have everything, where would you put it?" -Steven Wright.

How much energy does it require to bloom the air into plasma?equation shown,

How much energy to move it using EMF? equation shown,

That is the theoretical efficiency of the item,assuming that it's not accelerating, just maintaining it's velocity, how much energy does it take for a rocket to displace air?

I want to use the energetic power, stored in chemicals, to release a CLUSTER of lasers all just under bloom potential, these cross on a point, this point is INSANLY HOT and is therfore quite charged, and trying to fly apart...EMF just helps to speed it along,

That is what I posted

now simulating all of this in 3d, I am planning, but I need to use space on a supercomputer, as much of the calculations need to run in parallel to be worth a damn,

do you have a massive multi-threaded server I can use?

I have been asking around @ caltech...

_________________Let not the bindings of society hold you back from improving it.... the masses follow where the bold explore.

I wouldn't give you any supercomputer time based on what you've posted here so far. Make a complete model first, do some basic calculations on paper to show that it's even remotely feasible, and then you can do the detailed simulation.

What you're currently doing is akin to "I can leg-press a certain weight and I have some mass, F = m*a and v = a*t, therefore I can run into orbit, now give me some expensive supercomputer time so I can simulate how best to tie my shoelaces before doing it.".

To get you on your way, here are a few questions, all of which can be answered with just pen, paper, high school maths and physics and some formulas from Wikipedia:

What is the mass of your craft?

How much acceleration can it withstand?

How fast does it need to go to get into orbit, ignoring drag?

What is the corresponding orbital energy?

How fast does it need to exit the launch sled to get that energy, again ignoring drag?

How long does the launch sled need to be to achieve that?

What is its frontal area and drag coefficient?

What is the density of air given an altitude? Don't bother with the Standard Atmospheric model, a simple exponential approximation is fine.

How fast does the craft have to exit the launch sled to have kinetic energy equivalent to orbital energy left at the top of the atmosphere, this time including drag?

How much air needs to be ionised in front of the craft between exiting the launcher and entering space?

How much energy does that take?

How much sustained power is needed to do that, given a reasonable flight profile?

What's the biggest suitable (e.g. frequency, sustained operation without overheating) laser money can buy, and how many of those would you need just to get enough power?

What power density is needed to achieve laser blooming at a given altitude?

How accurately can we currently aim lasers?

What's a reasonable minimal beam divergence? How wide a beam does that make at 100km altitude?

Can you get enough power density with the above lasers?

How much is this ionisation going to reduce drag?

How does that affect the required launcher exit velocity?

How much energy does that save in the launcher?

Do the lasers use more energy than the launcher saves? If not, what are the other advantages that might make this system worthwhile anyway?

We're just doing a back-of-the-envelope calculation here, so all figures can be ballpark assumptions, say to within an order of magnitude. Obviously some things you don't know, so just do some research and make a reasonable assumption. But I want actual numbers, not just some formula with no explanation of what it means or how it should be used in this context.

I realise that this is starting to look like actual work, but if you want to be an engineer, well, hard work it is .

_________________Say, can you feel the thunder in the air? Just like the moment ’fore it hits – then it’s everywhereWhat is this spell we’re under, do you care? The might to rise above it is now within your sphereMachinae Supremacy – Sid Icarus

Do the lasers use more energy than the launcher saves? If not, what are the other advantages that might make this system worthwhile anyway?

1 . The system would allow for massive payloads, (the heavier the better)as the larget payload you launch, the more momentum it has...

We could in theory make a VERY huge rocket and do the same thing ....one time.... this is about re-usablilty as well.

Zero Turn around time, theoretically your could re-launch again in moments,

No "expended" parts

Much of the emerging technology (graphene/diamond composites) could lead to a system, that stores energy, is structural, and heat sinking, and thermo-electric....

I think that a system that when the leading edge heated up, converted the energy into light..... http://phys.org/news/2012-03-efficiency.htmlThan there is ZERO energy stored in chem lasers, ALL ENERGY would be delivered via the rail gun, Zeropto would just keep it from becoming a streak of vapor... you could potentially just use this tech instead

_________________Let not the bindings of society hold you back from improving it.... the masses follow where the bold explore.

POWER Zeropto accelerator by absorbing the wasted heat, making the rocket lighter anyway (less need for heat shielding) pump electricty into "Overunity" LED array on front, absorb heat from incomming atmosphere, and use it to knock atmosphere out of the way..

_________________Let not the bindings of society hold you back from improving it.... the masses follow where the bold explore.

That's a really intriguing article, but I'm pretty sure they aren't describing true overunity. Sounds like they're borrowing a bit of subatomic energy to produce the excess voltage. (Maybe roughly analogous to "crystal radios" that magically run without power.) However, might still work as a heat sink if scaled up to the proper size.

Think about taking 90% of the waste heat from a rocket engine and 90% of the heat on the nose cone (Hight Mach number, Mixing in a chemical laser... and generating a beam to shed the heat, that "knocked" the air right out of the way? and another field that "surfed the collapse"

So basically a large dart shaped craft, with a long aerospike, and some armatures, and some insane tech...

_________________Let not the bindings of society hold you back from improving it.... the masses follow where the bold explore.

1.Mass- unknown but very heavy think a ceramic train car...with life support.

Good, how big is a train car, what's the density of a typical ceramic, and to what mass does that work out?

Sigma wrote:

2.Accel = designed to withstand more G's then a person slightly, however the actual acceleration will be over a great period of time.

OK, so pick a number within those constraints. We can adjust it later if we don't like the results.

Sigma wrote:

3.Depends on the orbit, 4.Unknown

Note that I'm making it easy on you here: since I didn't specify an orbit, you could just look up orbital energy on Wikipedia and copy-paste one of the given ready-made answers from the handy table. Or if you want to do it yourself, a 185x185km (100x100nm) orbit is often considered the minimum for LEO.

Sigma wrote:

5.Idealy enough energy to get to space/orbit WITH the friction when leaving sled. -Zeropto just keeps it from melting.

I figured that out from your writings eventually. But how many Joules is that?

Sigma wrote:

6. VERY VERY LONG.... like east coast US to west coast...But I think it can be a public transit systemwhen not launching "darts"

But is that long enough, given the maximum acceleration you chose above?

Sigma wrote:

Skipping to the meat....

No, you're skipping the meat, not skipping to the meat.

_________________Say, can you feel the thunder in the air? Just like the moment ’fore it hits – then it’s everywhereWhat is this spell we’re under, do you care? The might to rise above it is now within your sphereMachinae Supremacy – Sid Icarus

How about if we just find a really tall mountain and put a cannon on top of it...

Attachment:

newtIdea.jpg

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post._________________The most promising new channel on YouTube: FargoFX(in my totally dispassionate and thoroughly objective opinion.)